GAS VERSUS ELECTRICITY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1008, 24 December 1910, Page 17

GAS VERSUS ELECTRICITY.

Sir,—Re ■ lighting the hospital, "this question appears to Bo: exercisinsr t in minds of tho members of the Hospital Board very considerably just now. I was interested enough to preservo clinpings from the local naDers, containing the reports of, the sub-committee , oh tho question, and a.ca'reftil perusal of these reports'-and the conseouent discussions upon -them provide rather intcrestim? reading-. • , .. b . At tho Hospital Board meeting held in November last, .when the sub-com-mittec's report was presented recoiri-' mending that the Gas Comnanv's offer be accepted, it was stated by tlie chairman of the board that tho approximate cost of putting the gas installation into good order would be £300. Tho cost of installing the electric light and-sup-plying burners was estimated by the electrical engineer as approximately £700. The. electrical engineer fifrther estimated tho annual cost of current to tho boc.rd at £50.3, while the chairman of the board said at present the cost of gas to the institution did not excecd £300 per year. The sub-committee, considering the .question .upon tlie figures placed before them, very riglitly°concluded that gas'was the cheaper' illuminant. It was a sound business proposition that they were not justified in spending £700 of tho citizen's money for an electrical installation unless it' was beyond doubt possible, to. save hit amount on the annual cost of lighting

sufficient to repay within a-reasonable number of years the ' outlay nccessary to put in an electrical installation. Tlio figures quoted show that an', electrical installation would cost £400 the first' year, and the cost of current £203 annually more than the improved gas installation.

the City Council appears to havo made up its luiud that the Gas Company must not havo the lighting of tho hospital, 110 matter how much extra the citizens have to pay, and is now prepared to supply current 'at threepence per unit, instead of fivepence, which rate was previously given as tho bedrock quote. Evidently tho. dignity ' of some of the .City Councillor, members of the . board has been very deeply nifected'.. ihp electrical engineer,, acting under.instructions from tho council, now-, reports that the installation can bo earned out for £600—still £300 above the' Uas Company's offer. Considering the circumstances under which the amended 'estimate, is given, it is probable tho original estimate is more likely to bo conceit than tho later one. The annual cost of current under tho original estimate was quoted by tho chairman of the board at -£503 (although the electrical engineer refers to it.as £458), and under tho reduccd rate of threeuehce per unit ho estimates the annual" cost of Slj™!'''! based on a coiisumntion of units, _ as £275, thus showing a saving-of £25 per year in - favour of electricity. In order to save this £25 per tllc b - oa r d have -to spend ioUU .-more to install electricitv than to put the present gas installation into "an iip,-to-dato condition ; and assuming tliev.paid off tho £000 prime, cost-qf the elec-'. trie installation, by two instalments- ..in two years, the interest at five per cent would be' not less than £45— it would take the board fourteen years to recoup • i ii or initial expenditure on an installation Which, at the end of that period, would in all probabilitv he ready tor the scrap-heap. . This estimated saving of £25 per year ill favour of electricity entirely vanishes when tho committee's own statement is considered, that "at least two-thirds of tlio gas consumed by the board was used for heating purposes," This being tlio case, the electrical engineer has still rurtlier to reduce his estimate by £200. per year to place the board in the same position as they would occunv under the proposed contract with the'C!as'Company. If tho council secure tile contract to supply tho hosnital with current ,afc threepence per .unit,, is it . not to .;havo a disastrous effect' iii: another dircetuju ?,, Two: of the council's argest consumers, the.,o6vernnient>nd tlio Harbour .Board, I .'uiulerstaitd aro now paying fivepence nor..'."unit: Will they bo satisfied to continue paying that rate when tlio hospital gets current" for threeponeo; According to Mr. Wilford, who mado the statement in the House recently, the City Council's electrical department cannot produce current for lighting purposes at less than 2}d per unit. This being tho. case, there appears little prospect of any pecuniary benefit to tlio city from the electric lighting department.—l am, etc. ....... CITIZEN.